James Hird and Essendon chairman Paul Little insist there is no rift between them and that the suspended coach will "absolutely" take the reins in season 2015.

The three-day trial in Federal Court, in which the Bombers and Hird argued the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority's investigation into the club was unlawful because it was a joint probe with the AFL, finished on Wednesday, and afterwards Hird said he had no problem with Little.

Best buds: 'There's been a lot of silly things said in the paper' Photo: Michael Dodge/Getty Images

During his evidence in the witness box on Tuesday, Hird told the court he disagreed with public statements made by Little and Little's predecessor, David Evans, throughout 2013 over whether the Bombers should have self-reported to ASADA.

Advertisement

But on Wednesday Hird said: "There's been a lot of silly things said in the paper but I fully support Paul and his board. They've been terrific of late and I can't wait for Saturday night to watch the Bombers beat the West Coast Eagles."

Little said any talk of a rift between he and the club's suspended coach was "simply not right".

Neil Young arrives at court. Photo: Getty Images

"James and I ... have a very strong relationship, we have a strong relationship with the board, James has a strong relationship with 'Bomber' [Essendon coach Mark Thompson]. It's a very positive 2015 we're looking forward to."

Hird's one-year suspension ends on August 25 and although he won't be involved directly with the team for the rest of this season, Little said "absolutely" when asked if Hird would coach the club next year. Hird is contracted for the next two seasons.

Little said Essendon would not speculate on the outcome of the trial, but the club received a "very fair hearing and our legal team did very well".

When asked about the importance of the hearing, he replied: "This is terribly important. In our mind we have to be satisfied that the process was legal and that will be determined by the judge."

Little, who said the club was continuing to work on mending its relationship with the AFL, would not speculate on an appeal if the decision went against the club. The Bombers could appeal to the full Federal Court or the High Court.

Earlier in court, Essendon counsel Neil Young, QC, accused the investigation conducted by the AFL and ASADA of being "directly repugnant" to the anti-doping body's laws.

In presenting the Bombers' final summary after ASADA officials Aaron Walker and Trevor Burgess had been cross-examined, Young reinforced the two "grounds of invalidity" and why he believes Justice John Middleton should rule in the favour of the club and James Hird.

Young said the investigation was conducted "beyond the power" of ASADA and "demonstrates that what occurred was contrary to the [ASADA] Act".

"The statute infers there was no power whatsoever for ASADA to act in the way it did," he said.

He also reiterated the argument that the investigation was conducted for "improper purposes", that being not only for ASADA to probe an anti-doping breach at Essendon in 2011-12. The Bombers and Hird allege the investigation was also conducted so the AFL could impose sanctions for breaches of governance.

As part of this "improper purpose", Young said ASADA had exploited the deficiencies in the ASADA laws by embracing the AFL's powers to compel players and officials to be interviewed and provide answers, ceding their right to silence. He also said the investigation had breached confidentiality laws, with ASADA passing on information to the AFL.

He said there was a "quid pro quo" for the AFL, in that it could penalise Essendon and Hird as a result of what is alleged to have been a joint investigation.

He claimed ASADA had given information to the AFL "without restrictions for its use" and it was "apparent" the AFL Commission had been briefed and "were talking about sanctions well before August 1 when the charges were laid".

The Bombers were later fined $2 million, stripped of draft picks and Hird was suspended for a year - on full pay - as a result of the governance breaches.

With Hird and wife Tania watching from the public gallery, Young also pointed to evidence given by former ASADA chief Aurora Andruska, referencing her statement that she had never made a decision that AFL investigators should be present during the interview process or whether the league should have received a "continued flow of information".

However, this prompted Justice Middleton to question whether Andruska needed to make a decision, for she had said it was a continued process.

Young also made reference to the law which states any sporting body must immediately inform ASADA of any possible anti-doping breach and must co-operate with the investigation. Young argued that the definition of co-operation did not allow for AFL investigators to sit in on interviews and get "all the information as it arises".

He said ASADA had allowed "the AFL into the tent" and should not have been "concerned with the enforcement of AFL laws".

Young also pointed to the AFL's contractual relationship with corporate auditor Deloitte, which reviewed information from players' mobile phones for ASADA officials, as a way of showing how close their relationship was.

Young said it was an "inescapable fact" that ASADA didn't have the power to run a joint investigation and that by doing so "it let the AFL into the tent".

He claimed one of ASADA's lawyers had said that a joint investigation would be unlawful.

"Why did it happen? It knew it was the only way that ASADA will borrow the AFL's compulsive powers to have players attend interviews," he said.

Justice Middleton said he still felt the case would be determined on what he felt was a "confined case".

He also asked Young why there were so many arguments when the AFL "clearly has a purpose bringing to heel people who are misbehaving in relation to doping matters?"

13 Aug
A high-ranking federal government figure told a senior anti-doping official that the AFL wanted the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority to appear as "the bad guys" over penalties in the Essendon supplements scandal, a court has heard.

13 Aug
The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Body has warned if its joint investigation with the AFL into the Essendon supplements program is deemed unlawful it could re-acquire the same information within 24 hours and re-issue the show-cause notices already handed to 34 players.

13 Aug
The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority has warned if its joint investigation with the AFL into the Essendon supplements program is deemed unlawful it could reacquire the same information within 24 hours and reissue the show-cause notices.

13 Aug
Three days of hearings before Justice John Middleton in the Federal Court are over. Essendon, James Hird and the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority have had their say. So what's next in the AFL's trial of the century?